Across the United Kingdom, the ramifications of a landmark UK Supreme Court ruling handed down on April 16, 2025, continue to ripple through organizations, charities, and individuals alike. The decision, which clarified that the terms "woman" and "sex" in the Equality Act 2010 refer specifically to "biological women and biological sex," has ignited fresh debates about gender, inclusion, and the practicalities of single-sex spaces.
In Scotland, Rape Crisis Scotland (RCS) finds itself at the heart of this evolving legal and social landscape. The charity, which supports survivors of sexual violence, recently advertised for a "woman-only" advocacy worker. According to Sky News, campaigners are now urging RCS to ensure that the successful applicant is a "biological woman," as defined by the Supreme Court's recent judgment. This call for compliance comes as the charity attempts to rebuild trust after a turbulent period marked by internal controversy and public scrutiny.
The issue of who qualifies for "women-only" roles is far from academic. Fiona McAnena, director of campaigns at the charity Sex Matters, stated unequivocally, "The ruling leaves no doubt that 'women' must mean those who are female, as observed and recorded at birth." She emphasized that while RCS describes itself as "trans inclusive," the law now requires that this particular role be reserved for women born female. "Rape Crisis Scotland says it is 'trans inclusive' and that's fine as long as it operates according to the law, which means this job is only for women, not men who identify as such," McAnena told Sky News.
The context behind this heightened scrutiny is complex. Last year, the Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre (ERCC)—an autonomous member of the RCS network—was found by an independent review to have failed to provide women-only spaces for a period of 16 months. The controversy escalated when Mridul Wadhwa, a transgender woman who had been serving as ERCC's chief executive, resigned after the review concluded she had not acted professionally and did not fully understand the limits of her authority. This investigation was prompted by an employment tribunal, which found that Roz Adams, a former ERCC employee, had been constructively dismissed due to her "gender critical beliefs." In the aftermath, ERCC apologized to Adams, and RCS committed to implementing the review's recommendations—though not without facing further challenges.
Indeed, the fallout extended beyond Edinburgh. Glasgow and Clyde Rape Crisis Centre (GCRC) severed ties with the RCS network, citing concerns over the provision of single-sex spaces. Against this backdrop, the April 2025 Supreme Court decision has forced organizations like RCS to revisit their policies on single-sex services, sometimes under considerable public pressure.
In its recent job advertisement for the advocacy worker role, RCS cited Schedule 9, Part 1 of the Equality Act 2010, which allows employers to specify that a role may be restricted to individuals with a particular protected characteristic—in this case, "biological women." The application notes stated, "Only women need apply under Schedule 9, Part 1 of the Equality Act 2010." Interviews for the position are expected to begin next month. The successful candidate will join a team dedicated to supporting and advocating for survivors of sexual violence, particularly those navigating the criminal justice system.
However, campaign groups such as For Women Scotland (FWS) and Sex Matters are seeking further clarification. They point out that similar wording referencing Schedule 9 was used in a 2021 ERCC job advert, which led to the hiring of Wadhwa. Trina Budge, director of FWS, called on RCS to confirm unequivocally that it would comply with the 2025 ruling: "RCS must confirm it will comply with the ruling so it can start to rebuild trust with service users," Budge asserted.
While organizations grapple with the implications of the Supreme Court decision, individuals are feeling its effects in deeply personal ways. Anne Isabella Coombes, a 67-year-old transgender woman from Reading, recounted to the BBC her recent experience with Swim England, the national swimming body. Invited to act as an official at a national competition in Sheffield earlier this month, Coombes sought clarification on which changing room she should use. According to her, Swim England responded, "Thanks to the Supreme Court Judgement, I could use the gents." They also offered her a separate changing room, a gesture that left her feeling "alien, and 'other' to be honest." As a result, Coombes chose not to attend the event.
Swim England, for its part, told the BBC, "Swim England adheres to the host venue’s policies regarding changing room arrangements at our events. We also recognise that individual needs may vary, and we’re committed to working directly with those individuals across our sports to ensure their comfort and a positive experience." Yet for Coombes, the arrangements felt isolating and discriminatory. "The fact that they see creating a separate changing facility as an acceptable solution makes me feel 'othered,'" she said. "It makes me feel different from everyone else, like they are creating a third sex. This is against the Gender Recognition Act, you cannot leave people in an indeterminable position, and that's what they are doing by this!"
Coombes' frustrations with national swimming policy are not new. She previously protested Swim England’s ban on her competing in the women’s division by entering the Cornwall County Masters topless—an act that highlighted the awkwardness of being required to wear female swimwear while racing against men. "I asked them what costume I was supposed to wear, as there are rules around how much fabric can be on your body," she explained. "They confirmed that I need to wear a female swimming costume despite having to compete with the men, which 'outs' me as a woman who is transgender. I explained to the person on the phone that they are not allowed to do that, and he didn't have an answer."
Since the Supreme Court ruling, protests have erupted across the UK, including two in Reading and another planned for June 28. At one such protest in Truro, Coombes addressed the crowd: "Most trans people just want to get on with their lives and be treated as the gender they are. But unfortunately, given what the Supreme Court has done, we need to stand up and say 'I'm trans, I exist, and you're not going to silence me.' Existence is resistance."
As organizations like Rape Crisis Scotland and Swim England adapt to the new legal realities, the debate over the definition of "woman"—and the rights and recognition of transgender individuals—remains far from settled. With advocacy groups, charities, and individuals all navigating the shifting tides of law and public opinion, the coming months promise further challenges, conversations, and, perhaps, change.
